04/28/2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Eagle Brook Church April 14, 2003 page 4 Visual: Several comment letters included concerns about the visual impact of lighting and of a tall church spire. The City restricts lighting with provisions in the new zoning ordinance. Lighting must use 90 degree cutoff fixtures (e.g., shoebox type). All applications must include a photometric plan showing the lighting brightness across the property. Lighting can be no greater than 0.4 foot candles at a property line shared with a residential property. The limit is 1.0 foot candles at a road centerline. The other visual issue raised is the proposed 80 ft. spire. As can be seen in the building elevation attached to the response document, the "spire" is a decorative element rising 20 ft. above the pier, which is the tallest part of the actual building (60 ft.). The spire is not a belfry or tower like many churches have. Though the final design is unfinished, the spire may be a cross or simply a lighted element. As with any site and building plan, the specific architectural elements would be examined as part of the review. It is typical for applicants to work out these details in cooperation with the City prior to final approval. Because a church requires a conditional use permit, there would be a public hearing with final approval by the city council. The new zoning ordinance revisions include a change relative to the issue. Previously, the ordinance granted a blanket exemption from height requirements for church spires. The new ordinance exempts church spires up to 60 feet. The possibility of exceeding this remains in the ordinance, through the granting of a conditional use permit. Therefore, the regulatory authority of the City will be used to address the visual impact questions. SUMMARY The EAW analyses and the public comments do not raise the potential for significant environmental effects. Possible impacts are not extensive or irreversible, and they can be addressed through ongoing public regulatory authority of various jurisdictions including the City of Lino Lakes, the Rice Creek Watershed District, Anoka County, the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation, and others. Therefore, an EIS is not warranted. OPTIONS 1. Approve Resolution 03 -44 making a negative declaration on the need for an EIS. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1